What is the Bible? Why do we say it's God's Word? How did we get it? What makes it so special?

Forum rules
This site is for dialogue, not diatribe. And, by the way, you have to be at least 13 years old to participate. Plus normal things: no judging, criticizing, name-calling, flaming, or bullying. No put-downs, etc. You know the drill.

The use of the Bible as evidence that a god exists could likely be the documentation of men under the influence of psychoactive and hallucinogenic oils and remedies.

Using the Bible (old and New Testament) as evidence for the existence of a god is extremely poor quality evidence, because there are no original texts, multiple unconfirmed authors, and inconsistency in translations, but also, the authors, and witnesses were likely under the influence of hallucinogenic and psychoactive compounds in frequently used anointing oil and other remedies.

It's possible there is no god, and the evidence of god were only hallucinations. those who have had visions of god, and documented it in the Old and New Testament, may not have had actual visions of a god, but instead were under the influence of anointing oil, incense, and/or myrrh, which had strong phychoactive and hallucinogenic ingredients. Also, one of the reasons there are significantly less miracles and appearances of god could be the decline in psychoactive and hallucinogenic ingredients used in anointing oils, incense (including Frankincense), and myrrh; also, our standards of evidence have improved significantly over the past 2000 years. Evidence of a god and miracles are not considered high quality evidence from someone who is hallucinating or under the influence of psychoactive compounds.

There is speculation that hallucinogenic mushrooms and cacti, heavily influenced the major religions of India, Americas, Middle East and Europe, including Christianity [9, 17]. Entheogen in the narrow sense, is the psychoactive substance used in psychotherapy, religious, spiritual or shamanic context. The term is derived from two words of ancient Greek, (entheos) and (genesthai). The literal meaning of the word entheogen is “that which causes God to be within an individual”.

Early Christians used cannabis oil for medicinal purposes and as part of baptism to con rm the forgiveness of sins and “right of passage” into the Kingdom of Heaven [1]. According to the Living Torah, cannabis was an ingredient of holy anointing oil mentioned in various sacred Hebrew texts [7, 12]. The herb of interest is best known as kaneh-bosm (Hebrew). This is mentioned several times in the Old Testament as a bartering material, incense, and a component of the holy anointing oil used by the high priest of the temple [12].

Cultivation of Opium poppies for food, anesthesia, and ritual purposes dates back to at least the Neolithic (New Stone) Age. In Sumerian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Indian, Minoan, Greek, Latin, Persian and Arab Empires each made widespread use of opium, which is the most powerful form of pain relief then available, allowing ancient surgeons to perform prolonged surgical procedures.

The holy anointing oil (Hebrew: שמן המשחה shemen ha-mishchah, "oil of anointing") formed an integral part of the ordination of the priesthood and the High Priest as well as in the consecration of the articles of the Tabernacle (Exodus 30:26) and subsequent temples in Jerusalem. The primary purpose of anointing with the holy anointing oil was to cause the anointed persons or objects to become qodesh, or "most holy" (Exodus 30:29).

Originally, the oil was used exclusively for the priests and the Tabernacle articles but was later extended to include prophets and kings (I Samuel 10:1). It was forbidden to be used on an outsider (Exodus 30:33) or to be used on the body of any common persons (Ex. 30:32a) and the Israelites were forbidden to duplicate any like it for themselves (Ex. 30:32b).

Christianity has continued the practice of using holy anointing oil as a devotional practice, as well as in various liturgies...

Most lexicographers, botanists, and biblical commentators translate keneh bosem as "cane balsam".[59][60] The Aramaic Targum Onkelosrenders the Hebrew kaneh bosem in Aramaic as q'nei busma.[61] Ancient translations and sources identify this with the plant variously referred to as sweet cane, or sweet flag (nl. the Septuagint, the Rambam on Kerithoth 1:1, Saadia Gaon and Jonah ibn Janah). This plant is known to botanists as acorus calamus.[62] According to Aryeh Kaplan in The Living Torah, "It appears that a similar species grew in the Holy Land, in the Hula region in ancient times (Theophrastus, History of Plants 9:7)."[63]

Chewing the rootstock of the plant can cause visual hallucinations, possibly because of the presence of alpha-asarone or beta-asarone.[34]

Cannabis, and others: possible ingredient of Kaneh bosem. Edit Other possible identifications have also been made. Sula Benet in Early Diffusion and Folk Uses of Hemp (1967), identified it as cannabis.[67] Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan notes that "On the basis of cognate pronunciation and Septuagint readings, some identify Keneh bosem with the English and Greek cannabis, the hemp plant. There are, however, some authorities who identify the 'sweet cane' with cinnamon bark (Radak, Sherashim). Some say that kinman is the wood, and keneh bosem is the bark (Abarbanel)." [68] Benet in contrast argued that equating Keneh Bosem with sweet cane could be traced to a mistranslation in the Septuagint, which mistook Keneh Bosem, later referred to as "cannabos" in the Talmud, as "kalabos", a common Egyptian marsh cane plant.[67]

Frankincense also affects mouse brains, and in a way that provokes fascinating questions about the intersection of culture and chemistry. "Most present-day worshippers assume that incense burning has only a symbolic meaning," Moussaieff says. But together with his Ph.D. adviser Raphael Mechoulam of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an international team of coworkers, he found evidence that a compound in frankincense resin exhibits depression- and anxiety-dampening effects in mice (FASEB J. 2008, 22, 3024). The team also demonstrated that the compound, a diterpenoid called incensole acetate, activates an ion channel involved in warmth perception in the skin. Although the results haven't been confirmed in humans, "it is possible that incensole acetate augments the euphoric feeling produced during religious functions," Moussaieff notes. Given that incense is one of the common threads in most major world religions and that immense symbolism is attached to incense burning, the Israeli team's findings "don't surprise me at all," Hughes says.

A number of ethnomycologists, including Terence McKenna,[25] have suggested that most characteristics of manna are similar to that of Psilocybe cubensis mushrooms, notorious breeding grounds for insects, which decompose rapidly. These peculiar fungi naturally produce a number of molecules that resemble human neurochemicals, and first appear as small fibres (mycelia) that resemble hoarfrost. Psilocybin, the primary psychoactive molecule in the "Psilocybe cubensis" mushroom, has been shown to produce spiritual experiences, with "personal meaning and spiritual significance" when test subjects were evaluated 14 months later.[26]

In the Hebrew Bible, manna is described twice: once in Exodus 16:1–36 with the full narrative surrounding it, and once again in Numbers 11:1–9 as a part of a separate narrative. In the description in the Book of Exodus, manna is described as being "a fine, flake-like thing" like the frost on the ground.[3] It is described in the Book of Numbers as arriving with the dew during the night.[4] Exodus adds that manna was comparable to hoarfrost in size,[3] similarly had to be collected before it was melted by the heat of the sun,[5] and was like a coriander seed that is white.[6] Numbers describes it as having the appearance of bdellium,[7] adding that the Israelites ground it and pounded it into cakes, which were then baked, resulting in something that tasted like cakes baked with oil.[8]Exodus states that raw manna tasted like wafers that had been made with honey.[6] The Israelites were instructed to eat only the manna they had gathered for each day. Stored manna "bred worms and stank":[9] the exception being that stored the day before the Sabbath (Preparation Day), when twice the amount of manna was gathered. This manna did not spoil overnight...

Matthew 6:16-18 jesus said: 16 “aWhenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they 1neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting. bTruly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 17 “But you, when you fast, aanoint your head and wash your face 18 so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your aFather who sees what is donein secret will reward you.

Fasting, plus the use of anointing oil, increases effect of hallucinogenic and psychoactive ingredients. Leviticus 2:1-2

Oil is a widely understood symbol of the Holy Spirit and thus does not require a detailed explanation, but one scripture will suffice to link the Holy Spirit and oil directly:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed. . . . (Luke 4:18)

You're right that the Bible doesn't prove that God exists. The Bible is His revelation of Himself, not the proof of His existence.

> the authors, and witnesses were likely under the influence of hallucinogenic and psychoactive compounds in frequently used anointing oil and other remedies.

This is off the wall with no evidence to support it.

> those who have had visions of god, and documented it in the Old and New Testament, may not have had actual visions of a god, but instead were under the influence of anointing oil, incense, and/or myrrh, which had strong phychoactive and hallucinogenic ingredients.

> Olive oil is an effective carrier for drugs to be absorbed more easily through the skin.

So your argument is: "olive oil is part of anointing oil, olive oil can be a carrier for drugs, therefore anointing oil is drug-oil".

Alright. By this logic we can look at someone cooking and say: "They are putting olive oil in their frying pan. Olive oil is an effective carrier for drugs. Therefore they are feeding their children drugs."

Such a statement would be as baseless as your argument.

Another example:

> Early Christians used cannabis oil for medicinal purposes and as part of baptism to confirm the forgiveness of sins and “right of passage” into the Kingdom of Heaven

So early Christians used marijuana as a part of their baptisms? Okay, and yet no evidence is provided for this...

And then again:

> A number of ethnomycologists, including Terence McKenna,[25] have suggested that most characteristics of manna are similar to that of Psilocybe cubensis mushrooms, notorious breeding grounds for insects, which decompose rapidly.

Oho! So when the Bible says "manna", which is described as bread, it must really mean... mushroom! And your argument for this is that: "a number of ethnomycologists including Terence McKenna" noted similarities between the bread of the Old Testament and rapidly decomposing mushrooms? Need anyone really say more?

> [61] Ancient translations and sources identify this with the plant variously referred to as sweet cane, or sweet flag

and if these identifications are correct:

> This plant is known to botanists as acorus calamus.

If all those ifs are correct, then we can say the plant is acorus calamus. Okay. But wait a minute:

> [62] According to Aryeh Kaplan in The Living Torah, "It appears that a similar species grew in the Holy Land, in the Hula region in ancient times (Theophrastus, History of Plants 9:7)."[63]

... Oh. So even if all those ifs are correct then it's not actually that plant after all, instead it's a different species... Hmm. And not only is it a different species but no-one actually knows whether or not this actually grew there at the time?

Well, let's just forgive that. After all that a plant appears to have grown somewhere at some point in the past is better than nothing. And after all a similar, albeit a different species of plant is better than nothing, too, right? Strange that no information is given as to what "similar" exactly means in this context, though. I wonder if it is as similar as bread to mushrooms?

But never mind. Moving on:

> Chewing the rootstock of the plant can cause visual hallucinations, possibly because of the presence of alpha-asarone or beta-asarone.[34]

... Oh. So the different species of plant (which may or may not be the correct one anyway, and which may or may not have grown there, but which some speculate that it appears to have) causes hallucinations only if the root-stock is chewed. Okay.

Well, let's be as generous as possible, ignore all the shakiness, weaknesses and uncertainties in the argument, and take a great big leap of faith. Let's assume that: (1) all the "ifs" are absolute certainties, and (2) let's just assume that this different species of plant is similar enough to the aforementioned hallucinogenic plant that they have exactly the same properties, despite being a different species!(3) and let's also assume, for sake of convenience, that it grew there.

This then raises other questions: was the rootstock itself used in the oil?

Let's ignore that, (because your argument is shaky enough already) and just assume with 100% certainty that it was.

This raises another question: since chewing the rootstock causes hallucinations does this still apply when it is poured over the head? Well, let's ignore that too and assume that pouring this oil over the head will cause vivid hallucinations anyway.

Now we have another question: would the hallucinogenic properties remain after the process of being brewed into the oil? Since, as far as I know, no-one has replicated this exact oil we can't really say.

... And such is your argument. But well done for trying, I guess. You sure did "stick it to the man" right there with all that logic. You sure showed all those ignorant marijuana-smoking Christians amirite? Slow clap.

Would you like me to comment on one of your other points as well or have you heard enough to see why your argument is rubbish?

> What's the source for this information? The only possible source could be samples of millennia-old oils. I'm not aware of any such samples, nor did you footnote this part.

Exodus 30:22-25

There are extrabiblical documentation of people, in Sumerian civilization and Ancient Rome Before, during, using hallucinogenic and psychoactive substances.

Writers of, and witnesses within The Old and New Testament Lived in Ancient Sumerian and Ancient Rome.

it's possible that the witnesses, people within a society that used hallucinogenic and psychoactive drugs, who saw god, were under the influence hallucinogenic and psychoactive drugs, then there character should be called into question before we accept their testimony and anecdotal claim that a god exists.

OK, thanks. There is obviously a grave misunderstanding on your part or the part of your source. First, the oil to which you are referring was never ingested either by mouth or inhalation. If you read Exodus 30.26-28, it was poured on articles of furniture. In Ex. 30.30, it was poured on the heads of the priests. Secondly, this oil in the temple had nothing to do with the writing of the Scriptures, nor can we infer the authors were under any kind of influence of it when they were writing. Your claim was that "the authors, and witnesses were likely under the influence of hallucinogenic and psychoactive compounds." But there's no evidence of that anywhere, at all. Third, there was a strict regulation that this recipe was used only in the temple for these sacred anointings and never for any other use (Ex. 30.32-33). Your case is completely unfounded and falls apart at the first sign of research.

Your claim that it was "later extended to include prophets and kings (I Samuel 10:1)" is misguided also. Samuel used a flask of olive oil, not the sacred recipe. There's nothing in the text to suggest anything but common olive oil.

> There are extrabiblical documentation of people, in Sumerian civilization and Ancient Rome Before, during, using hallucinogenic and psychoactive substances.

Of course there are. That has nothing to do with Israelite usage or anything to do with the authorship of the Bible.

> Writers of, and witnesses within The Old and New Testament Lived in Ancient Sumerian and Ancient Rome.

Yes, undeniably.

> it's possible that the witnesses, people within a society that used hallucinogenic and psychoactive drugs, who saw god, were under the influence hallucinogenic and psychoactive drugs, then there character should be called into question before we accept their testimony and anecdotal claim that a god exists.

We have to ask not just what's possible, but what's reasonable given all that we know, and your case holds no water. We weigh the positive and negative evidence to infer the most reasonable explanation, and your case if fatally flawed in many areas

- There is no evidence that the sacred oil was hallucinogenic. Your case had several fatal speculations with no evidence let alone proof. - There is no evidence that the authors of Scripture were even possibly under the influence of the sacred oil. - Manna is different than mushrooms - The sacred oil was neither burned (to enter the body through the sinuses) nor ingested (to enter the body through the mouth)

Anything is possible, but is it reasonable? Your case is not even close to being possible beyond a reasonable doubt.

> Anything is possible, but is it reasonable? Your case is not even close to being possible beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately, that's not how claims and reasonable doubt works. If there is a claim, and I cast a doubt on the possibility of that claim, the people making the claim have a burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. There is an extraordinary unconfirmed claim that a god exists from people, documented by mostly unknown authors, in very old copied texts. I'm attempting to cast a doubt on the unconfirmed extraordinary claims, documented by mostly unconfirmed authors, by presenting evidence. There is evidence of people using hallucinogenic and psychoactive ingredients before, during, and after jesus lived. There is evidence of people using hallucinogenic and psychoactive ingredients in and around the communities the books of the Bible were written.

> OK, thanks. There is obviously a grave misunderstanding on your part or the part of your source. First, the oil to which you are referring was never ingested either by mouth or inhalation.

Sorry, you were meant to link the fact that olive oil mediates the transfer of other compounds through the skin.

> If you read Exodus 30.26-28, it was poured on articles of furniture. In Ex. 30.30, it was poured on the heads of the priests.

Yes. Olive oil enhances the delivery, of other oils or compounds its mixed with, through the skin. There are oils, from plants, that can be absorbed through the skin, that causes hallucinations.

> Secondly, this oil in the temple had nothing to do with the writing of the Scriptures,

The Holy anointing oil of the themple is not related at all to the holy anointing oil that Moses or jesus or the disciples used? And weren't these oils placed on the skin/head?

> nor can we infer the authors were under any kind of influence of it when they were writing.

All The writers? Probably not.

the witnesses and writers who say they saw the risen jesus and other holy spirits and angels? probably.

> Your claim was that "the authors, and witnesses were likely under the influence of hallucinogenic and psychoactive compounds." But there's no evidence of that anywhere, at all.

The primary advocate of a religious use of cannabis plant in early Judaism was Sula Benet, also called Sara Benetowa, a Polish anthropologist, who claimed in 1967 that the plant kaneh bosm קְנֵה-בֹשֶׂם mentioned five times in the Hebrew Bible, and used in the holy anointing oil of the Book of Exodus, was in fact cannabis.[23] The Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church confirmed it as a possible valid interpretation.[24] The lexicons of Hebrew and dictionaries of plants of the Bible such as by Michael Zohary (1985), Hans Arne Jensen(2004) and James A. Duke (2010) and others identify the plant in question as either Acorus calamus or Cymbopogon citratus.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen

It's not only possible, buts it's 100% probable that people using hallucinogenic and psychoactive ingredients before, during, and after jesus lived. There is 100% probability of people using hallucinogenic and psychoactive ingredients in and around the communities the books of the Bible were written. There is 100% probability that people, living now and in the past, and in multiple locations all over the world, have had hallucinations of people they know have died. That, combined with a host of cognitive biases, plus: John 20:11–18, Luke 24:13–21, John 21:1–13, Acts 2:14-15, supports the hypothesis that the resurrected jesus was probably hallucinated.

> Third, there was a strict regulation that this recipe was used only in the temple for these sacred anointings and never for any other use (Ex. 30.32-33). Your case is completely unfounded and falls apart at the first sign of research.

Yes, as stated at one instance in the Bible, but stating it doesn't make everyone follow words on a page because Moses, jesus, and the disciples used it. But these passages prove anointing oil wasn't only used in temples, but also used by Moses, jesus, and the disciples.Exodus 30:22-33 King James Version (KJV) 22 Moreover the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 23 Take thou also unto thee principal spices, of pure myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty shekels, and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty shekels, 24 And of cassia five hundred shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, and of oil olive an hin: 25 And thou shalt make it an oil of holy ointment, an ointment compound after the art of the apothecary: it shall be an holy anointing oil.

Jesus gave the disciple anointing oil. Mark 6:7-13

7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirit... 13 And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.

Psalm 45:7-8 7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 8 All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia, out of the ivory palaces, whereby they have made thee glad.

Acts 2:3-4 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

They probably used their own drug/anointing oil.

> Your claim that it was "later extended to include prophets and kings (I Samuel 10:1)" is misguided also. Samuel used a flask of olive oil, not the sacred recipe. There's nothing in the text to suggest anything but common olive oil.

This verse was meant to show how anointing was done, not that another noting oil is Olive oil. The recipe for anointing oil is in exodus.There is no evidence that the sacred oil was hallucinogenic. Your case had several fatal speculations with no evidence let alone proof.Below is evidence to cast doubt, not prove, that the extraordinary claims (not facts), that a god exists, written in a book, by mostly unconfirmed authors, were probably hallucinations and the extraordinary claims do not have evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt.According to Exodus 30:22-25, one of the ingredients of holy anointing oil is Kaneh basam.

Polish anthropologist, who claimed in 1967 that the plant kaneh bosm קְנֵה-בֹשֶׂם mentioned five times in the Hebrew Bible, and used in the holy anointing oil of the Book of Exodus, was in fact cannabis.[23] The Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church confirmed it as a possible valid interpretation.[24] The lexicons of Hebrew and dictionaries of plants of the Bible such as by Michael Zohary (1985), Hans Arne Jensen(2004) and James A. Duke (2010) and others identify the plant in question as either Acorus calamus or Cymbopogon citratus. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen

> There is no evidence that the authors of Scripture were even possibly under the influence of the sacred oil

> Manna is different than mushrooms

Please provide evidence for this claim.

> The sacred oil was neither burned (to enter the body through the sinuses) nor ingested (to enter the body through the mouth)

The problem with your case is that the entire thing is based on conjecture, possibilities, and inferences. There isn't a solid fact in your whole case to substantiate your hypothesis.

> There is evidence of people using hallucinogenic and psychoactive ingredients before, during, and after jesus lived. There is evidence of people using hallucinogenic and psychoactive ingredients in and around the communities the books of the Bible were written.

Proximity isn't evidence, but merely context. I live in a country where there is a fentanyl epidemic, but I don't use the stuff. I live in a country where pot is becoming legalized and has long been recreation, but I've never smoked the stuff. Proximity is meaningless in your argument.

And then you build a case from there. That's not good enough. You yourself said we have to present evidence. This isn't evidence but conjecture and possibly not even reliable conjecture.

> There are oils, from plants, that can be absorbed through the skin, that causes hallucinations.

Of course there are, but you haven't given evidence that was a component of the holy oil but that maybe it was part of what possibly had been potentially part of what might have been in it. That's not good enough.

> The Holy anointing oil of the themple is not related at all to the holy anointing oil that Moses or jesus or the disciples used? And weren't these oils placed on the skin/head?

Moses once anointed Aaron and his sons with oil (Lev. 8.10, 30; 10.7). And, yes, it was placed on the head. That's it. You're making a case out of that? Jesus never used anointing oil. There is one record of the disciples anointing people with oil (Mark 6.13). But your case is that the Bible was written by people indulging in hallucinogens. You're not presenting any evidence of that.

> the witnesses and writers who say they saw the risen jesus and other holy spirits and angels? probably.

On what basis and by what evidence can you say "probably"?

> The primary advocate of a religious use of cannabis plant in early Judaism was Sula Benet

This is the opinion of several scholars, but it's not widely affirmed and not even close to being confirmed. Most biblical scholars disagree. You know as well as I that the identification of kaneh bosm is highly debated, that there are other candidates for the ingredient, and so your case rests on too many speculations to carry the weight of scholarship.

>It's not only possible, buts it's 100% probable that people using hallucinogenic and psychoactive ingredients before, during, and after jesus lived.

Of course they did. People have always used psychoactive plants. But proximity doesn't equal either evidence or proof.

> That, combined with a host of cognitive biases, plus: John 20:11–18, Luke 24:13–21, John 21:1–13, Acts 2:14-15, supports the hypothesis that the resurrected jesus was probably hallucinated.

This is absurd—a case pulled out of the air. I'm reading John 20.11-18. Where's there any hint of hallucination? In v. 12 Mary "saw." The tense of the verb is historical present. The verb means "careful notice, to studiously and attentively consider, to view with attention, a lengthened look." It is used of bodily, physical sight and assumes the object is actually present. Mary's answer (v. 13): "They have taken him away and I don't know where they put him," is not the answer of a woman who is hallucinating. She obviously doesn't realize they are angels, so they must not be glowing, and they must be in normal clothes. She's not lost in some hallucination but grieved over a missing body. Then she turns and sees Jesus (v. 14) but doesn't realize it's him. Again, not the language of hallucination. The word used for "she saw Jesus" is the same verb as before: Careful notice. It says she thought he was the gardener (v. 15). Your argument of hallucination doesn't make any sense.

> Yes, as stated at one instance in the Bible, but stating it doesn't make everyone follow words on a page because Moses, jesus, and the disciples used it.

Moses used it once, Jesus never did, and the disciples used an oil, but there's no evidence that the disciples used anything other than normal olive oil (the use of olive oil was one of the best remedial agencies known to the ancients). There is no indication in Mark 6.13 of any specific oil or any specific ingredients. Again your case is founded on pure speculation, and not necessarily reliable speculation.

> Exodus 30:22-33

This was a special formula for the temple, never to be used for any other purpose. But then you assume that when Jesus tells the disciples to anoint with oil he's speaking about the same recipe. That doesn't follow, nor does it make sense. That's like reading that my great-grandfather ate breakfast, and since I also eat breakfast we must be eating the same things.

> Psalm 45

You make it sound like there was only one kind of oil in all these situations, and therefore it must be hallucinogenic. But as you have admitted, there were many different recipes for oil.

> Acts 2:3-4 ... They probably used their own drug/anointing oil.

This is a leap in the dark, not a leap of logic.

> This verse was Meant to show how anointing was done, not that another noting oil is Olive oil. The recipe for anointing oil is in exodus.

Again this is untrue. The ingredients of the special formula for the temple oil is in Exodus. It was a special mixture, forbidden for other uses under the pain of death. The ancients used different recipes for perfume (Esther 2.12), celebrations (Ps. 23.5), and medicine (Lk. 10.34).

> Below is evidence to cast doubt, not prove, that the extraordinary claims (not facts), that a god exists, written in a book, by mostly unconfirmed authors, were probably hallucinations and the extraordinary claims do not have evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Your evidence is far too weak and speculative to cast any doubt.

> According to Exodus 30:22-25, one of the ingredients of holy anointing oil is Kaneh basam.

This is not true either. You have only said if q'nei busma is an accurate translation of keneh bosom, and if this is actually acorus calamus, and if...and if... Acorus calamus can be medicinal; it can be aromatic; but it certainly doesn't have to be hallucinogenic.

> "There is no evidence that the authors of Scripture were even possibly under the influence of the sacred oil"; "Manna is different than mushrooms"... Please provide evidence for this claim.

I can't argue from silence. There is no connection anywhere in Scripture with oil and authorship. None. Your assertion is pure and unsubstantiated speculation.

As far as manna, it came with the dew. That's not a description of mushrooms. The most frequent identification of it is with the description of small aphids that feed on the sap of tamarisk trees. When it hardens and falls to the ground it can be collected and used for a sweetener. Some think it was the seed liquid of the hammed plant, common in southern Sinai. But even that doesn't describe the phenomenon. The people describe it as more bread-like—thin flakes like frost (Ex. 16.14). It seems to be a scaly substance. Nothing in any of the record lends itself to identification as mushrooms.

> First of all, a hallucination explanation doesn't make sense because there is no such thing as a group hallucination. Such things are individual experiences, not the common experiences of a group at the same time.

I didn't say they all saw the same exact thing. But could different hallucinations be interpreted as the same thing? Has anyone confirmed that they all saw the same thing?

> Secondly, all the language they use is the language of eyesight, not visions. The terminology is solidly in the camp of physical eyesight and legitimate experience, not a mental, virtual, or visionary one.

The language who used? Who's terminology? Is it the author's or the witnesses? Who has confirmed this?

> Thirdly, their lives were radically changed by their experiences.

I'm sure some people who thought their hallucination was real, had life altering experiences. If someone's life changed based on what they thought they saw, does that mean what they saw was true?

> Many people have visions, and many have hallucinations. People are generally quite aware of the differences between their substance-induced hallucinogenic experiences and real life.

Some people now, in a time of access to more information, purposely take substances to induce visions/hallucinations, and think their hallucinations are real. How do we confirm if it's real or not?

Is this the same way people confirmed the extraordinary claims of what the eye witnesses of the Bible said they saw?

> The disciples lives were changed to the point of some, if not all, being willing to die for what they had seen. It carries far less import if it was a hallucination.

How have you confirmed that all the disciples lives were changed?

How have you confirmed everyone in the group was willing to die for what they saw?

> Fourth, they shared (preached) to others on the basis that Jesus really, historically, physically rose from the dead.

How have you confirmed who preached what? How have you confirmed what they preached? How have you confirmed what they preached was true?

> I didn't say they all saw the same exact thing. But could different hallucinations be interpreted as the same thing? Has anyone confirmed that they all saw the same thing?

1 Corinthians 15.6 says 500 people saw the resurrected Christ at the same time.

> The language who used? Who's terminology? Is it the author's or the witnesses? Who has confirmed this?

The Greeks had several different terms for seeing. The one the authors of the Gospels and the Paul used was for physical seeing of something that was actually there, a gazing at it to study it and confirm it by eyesight, not a quick glance or a visionary experience.

> If someone's life changed based on what they thought they saw, does that mean what they saw was true?

Of course not. But the men to whom you are referring didn't just see Jesus once, but multiple times, in different places and in different situations. As you read the Gospels, there's nothing about the stories that smacks of hallucinatory experiences.

We know that lots of students did hallucinogenic drugs in the 60s. There are plenty of people around who clearly know the difference between drug-induced hallucinations and real life.

> Some people now, in a time of access to more information, purposely take substances to induce visions/hallucinations, and think their hallucinations are real. How do we confirm if it's real or not?

Yes, there are people now who fit that description. The real question is, on what basis have you examined the original documents of the New Testament and come up with a strong case that the writings of these men point to a drug-induced alter-reality?

> Is this the same way people confirmed the extraordinary claims of what the eye witnesses of the Bible said they saw?

No, not at all. As you read the NT, there is nothing in the writings to lead someone to this conclusion. They would only arrive at this conclusion by some other route.

> How have you confirmed that all the disciples lives were changed?

Historiography. The travels, writings, and ministries of the apostles after the resurrection. What other contemporaries said about them. Some of them we lose track of pretty quickly after Acts 2.1-4, 14-15; Acts 5.12, 29; 6.2, etc., but what is in early Acts is enough to provide a case for changed lives. Searching historical references, there is no case for what you are claiming—that their lives were unaffected.

> How have you confirmed everyone in the group was willing to die for what they saw?

Historical references tell us, and there are other accounts that would lead us to the same conclusion.

- James was killed by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12.2) for his faith. - Peter was crucified for his faith, and his martyrdom is reported by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and more - Andrew is said to have been martyred by crucifixion at the city of Patras in Achaea - We have several traditions about Philip and Bartholomew. One says they were crucified, another says they were beheaded for their faith. - According to tradition, Thomas was killed in AD 72 in India. - Tradition says the other James was crucified in Egypt for his faith. - Tradition says Thaddaeus was martyred in Lebanon. - Little or nothing is known about the deaths of Matthew, Simon the Zealot, or John the son of Zebedee.

The evidence we have says they were willing to die for what they saw. There is no evidence to the contrary.

> How have you confirmed who preached what? How have you confirmed what they preached?

> I didn't say they all saw the same exact thing. But could different hallucinations be interpreted as the same thing? Has anyone confirmed that they all saw the same thing?

> 1 Corinthians 15.6 says 500 people saw the resurrected Christ at the same time.

How do you know that's exactly the same as original version of what paul wrote? Did he speak to any of the 500? Did paul have any way of confirming the extraordinary claims of any of the 500 witnesses? some way of confirming what jesus looked with the witnesses?

> The language who used? Who's terminology? Is it the author's or the witnesses? Who has confirmed this?

> The Greeks had several different terms for seeing. The one the authors of the Gospels and the Paul used was for physical seeing of something that was actually there, a gazing at it to study it and confirm it by eyesight, not a quick glance or a visionary experience.

There are people today who see visions/hallucinations and believe it's real and interact with it as if it's real. If people's brains work the same way then as it does now, it's possible people saw visions/hallucinations and thought it was real and used the word for "see" instead of "vision".

Also, was this terminology in Paul's original texts?

> If someone's life changed based on what they thought they saw, does that mean what they saw was true? ... Of course not. But the men to whom you are referring didn't just see Jesus once, but multiple times, in different places and in different situations.

Who documented this extraordinary claim? Who questioned the men to confirm their extraordinary testimony? Who examined the men's state of mind to confirm their extraordinary testimony was true? And did anyone confirm with any or all of the men to make sure they know what jesus looked like compared to what they saw?

> Some people now, in a time of access to more information, purposely take substances to induce visions/hallucinations, and think their hallucinations are real. How do we confirm if it's real or not?

> Yes, there are people now who fit that description. The real question is, on what basis have you examined the original documents of the New Testament and come up with a strong case that the writings of these men point to a drug-induced alter-reality?

The unconfirmed authors of the Bible and people theses authors wrote about claimed jesus was resurrected? Shouldn't the questions be: did they really see him and did anyone question them about what they saw? How can we confirm they really say what they claim? If we can't confirmed what they saw, are there other possibilities? If I'm wrong, are your correct?

> Is this the same way people confirmed the extraordinary claims of what the eye witnesses of the Bible said they saw?

> No, not at all. As you read the NT, there is nothing in the writings to lead someone to this conclusion. They would only arrive at this conclusion by some other route.

What route?

> How have you confirmed that all the disciples lives were changed? ... Historiography. The travels, writings, and ministries of the apostles after the resurrection. What other contemporaries said about them. Some of them we lose track of pretty quickly after Acts 2.1-4, 14-15; Acts 5.12, 29; 6.2, etc., but what is in early Acts is enough to provide a case for changed lives. Searching historical references, there is no case for what you are claiming—that their lives were unaffected.

People have written that the disciples lives changed. How does their life changing confirmed that what they saw was real?

> How have you confirmed everyone in the group was willing to die for what they saw? ... Historical references tell us, and there are other accounts that would lead us to the same conclusion

If they were willing to die for what they saw, does that mean what they saw was real?

> The evidence we have says they were willing to die for what they saw. There is no evidence to the contrary.

There is no evidence for the contrary in a collection of books translated and hand picked from over a hundred gospels by the members of the church, and there are no original, does that mean what they saw was real?

If "they shared (preached) to others on the basis that Jesus really, historically, physically rose from the dead" does that mean jesus actually did rise from the dead?